Washington DC

Friday, February 24, 2017

There’s a reason why it was the FIRST amendment

The Trump administration sent into exile at least four mainstream news organizations earlier today. Press Secretary Sean Spicer held a briefing at the White House where he blocked The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, CNN and Politico from attending.

In doing so, the administration of the President of the United States has crossed a line. Limiting the press is the first order of business for anyone who seeks to rule unilaterally, without opposition and with total power.

Up until now, most have paid little or no attention to those who had been comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. But today’s actions were terrifying. A free press is as crucial to our democracy as are elections themselves. Without it, voters would lack the information they need to make the informed decisions that our founding fathers entrusted to them.

The truth is, there are some understandable reasons why Donald Trump was elected President. The political elite ignored the pain and plight of a huge swath of the American people for far too long. Those voters felt they had no voice in Washington. They felt helpless and they took action the best way they could in the last election.

But the hard fact is, their solution is turning out to be far worse than the problem. It threatens the very existence of our country and the Donald Trump administration is leading the way. Our founding fathers’ vision has endured two-and-a-half centuries primarily because a free and unfettered press has always been absolutely sacred to us.

Freedom is fragile. Democracy is complicated. There are many factors that contribute to our nation’s sustainability and one of the most important ones is a press that is free of government censorship.

The mainstream media needs to be adamant in their reaction to today’s move. They must understand that it may have been CNN today but could it be NBC tomorrow, the Washington Post on Sunday and the Wall Street Journal on Monday.

The one bright spot of the day was that two news organizations, Time Magazine and AP, boycotted the briefing in solidarity with their fellow members of the press. But that simply is not enough. All of the other mainstream media outlets must do the same.

The press itself has a critical obligation to fight this battle and fight it hard. If they don’t, they are derelict in their duty and they become complacent in Donald Trump’s attempt to silence them. Their reaction must be immediate, unified and thundering loud. In no uncertain terms, the message from the press to the administration must be,“ban one, ban us all.”

Wednesday, February 01, 2012

Google recently made some fairly significant changes to its privacy policy. This update involves consolidating all of a user's data across the various Google services into a single document.

This consolidation will allow Google to easily share privacy data for a specific user among its various sites and services – Google search, Google+, YouTube, etc. The consolidated data will also allow Google to direct advertisements on one Google service based on content viewed through a different Google service.

Google is selling these changes as a way to tailor overall experiences – search, advertisements, content, etc. – to specific users.

Some members of congress aren't sure that it's as simple as Google has made it out to be. House Reps. Bono Mack (R-Cal.) and G.K. Butterfield (D.-N.C.) requested a briefing on the new policies in a letter written to Larry Page, Google's CEO. While these Representatives have lauded the "shorter, simpler, streamlined policy," they have concerns over how user data will be collected, stored, and secured. They are also concerned with the lack of an opt-out in the new policies.

Google has responded by saying that the new policies do not collect any new data and that users would still be able to control their privacy settings. The company also expressed its understanding about concerns and expressed an eagerness to clarify any "misconceptions about our privacy policies."

Sounds like Google is finally coming to understand it can't act like a startup by ignoring Washington, DC when it has grown to the gargantuan that it has become.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski wants the issue of sorting out unlicensed spectrum to be the FCC's responsibility – without Congress' hand in the mix.

In a recent interview, Genachowski spoke about the bill passed by the House of Representatives that limits the role that the FCC would play in dealing with spectrum bands that have not been claimed or distributed to parties. He opposes that view point, even though there are other parts of the bill – such as having incentivized auctions to free up spectrum currently not being used – that Genachowski finds more agreeable.

Genachowski believes that FCC has the flexibility and expertise to put unused spectrum to the best use. He cited Wi-Fi as a prime example. According to Genachowski, the FCC was responsible for freeing up the spectrum that eventually became Wi-Fi. That whole process began by the FCC freeing up spectrum and making it available for others to innovate.

Genachowski believes that other successful developments can be made using spectrum – so long as the FCC is free to open it up as a "platform for innovation."

Friday, December 02, 2011

Shortly after Amazon announced its new Silk browser for the Kindle Fire tablet, questions were raised by some members of Congress about the security of traffic on the new browser.

Silk is being promoted as an extra fast browser because it uses Amazon's massive server farms to store certain sites and web history on the cloud so that they load much faster than a typical HTTP request. That means that Amazon could end up having direct access to a large amount of user information.

Amazon has responded to these concerns by stating that stored web addresses will not be customer specific and will only be stored for 30 days. Amazon also says that information that is not approved for cacheing will not be kept and that all SSL traffic will not pass through Amazon's cloud infrastructure, instead moving directly from the tablets to the servers being targeted.

Amazon claims that it does not intend to sell the information, but it did not deny that the information will be used internally for its product sales efforts. This response has not been enough to quell the concerns of Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, so we'll have to wait and see if and how Congress responds to Silk.

Friday, November 11, 2011

On Wednesday, the Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives began an investigation into a loan for $267 million to Open Range Communications from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Open Range filed for bankruptcy earlier in November, despite receiving the largest loan given out as part of the USDA Rural Utilities Service's broadband development plan. Rep. Fred Upton, chairman of the committee said that the bankruptcy of Open Range puts "$73.5 million of taxpayer money at risk."

The committee wants to look more closely at the RUS's application process for Open Range to figure out why the agency decided to invest so much in the company. The committee also wants to understand what type of oversight the RUS exercised after the funds were distributed to make sure they were used as the program intended.

The loan was approved in March of 2008 as part of the broadband stimulus project which was aimed at providing broadband to rural communities. Since the first funds were granted, the program has had its fair share of failures and controversies.

There are references in the investigation letter to concerns over the general oversight by the USDA over the broadband loan programs. One allegation stated that a total of $340 million had been improperly granted, because of either incomplete applications, defaulted loans, or inappropriate purposes for granting the loans.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

The percentage of U.S. households with broadband Internet is now greater than two-thirds. Broadband usage jumped from 64% in 2010 to 68% this year, according to the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA).

The majority of broadband users are getting their service from cable. Roughly 32% use a cable modem compared to 23% who get broadband from a DSL connection.

The NTIA's study also examined the reasons people do not have broadband and actually found that only 24% cited cost as their main reason for not having broadband and 15% said lack of a computer was the reason. The top reason people chose not to have broadband was simply a lack of interest – the reason given by 47% of non-users.

It's notable that the NTIA report was released the same day that the FCC and cable providers announced the Connect To Compete program designed to increase broadband adoption. But the report highlights the simple fact that many people who do not have broadband simply don't want it.

Wednesday, November 02, 2011

The plan was to deploy 900 plus miles of fiber across Louisiana to serve some of the poorest areas of the state with broadband services. Funding was promised in the form of an $80 million grant from the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) as a part of the federal broadband stimulus.

Now, after numerous delays and reports of inadequate planning, the NTIA is pulling all of the funds and canceling the project. Overall, the BTOP program has promised billions of dollars in similar broadband deployment efforts across the country, and the failures in Louisiana shed some light on some of the problems with implementation of the initiative.

An NTIA administrator said that the Louisiana project "promised great benefits to unserved and underserved areas of the state." However, as the project proceeded the initial goals were unable to be met, putting the project significantly behind schedule. At that point, Louisiana proposed significant changes to the proposal without the details and scheduling that would inspire confidence in the program's future.

The funds that have been recouped will now be returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association has released the results of a recent study of broadband deployment in a letter to the FCC. According to these results, 60 percent of all U.S. households have had DOCSIS 3.0, cable's advanced broadband standard, deployed by their cable providers. By the end of 2011, that number is expected to be as high as 77 percent.

The report not only shows the overall success of DOCSIS 3.0, but also highlights the fact that DOCSIS 3.0 is making its way to smaller, more rural areas as well – independent from government intervention. This is important information for the FCC's current considerations regarding the National Broadband Plan and Universal Service Fund reform.

Regardless of how the FCC chooses to use this information in its future rule makings, it shows very significant progress in DOCSIS 3.0 roll out in the very brief time it has been in existence. DOCSIS 3.0 first hit the market when Comcast deployed it in Minnesota back in April of 2008.

Friday, October 07, 2011

The various challenges that have been made to the net neutrality rules that were passed by the FCC in 2010 will be heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Soon after the rules were enacted, Verizon and MetroPCS brought claims challenging the rules. These challenges were brought before the D.C. Circuit, in large part because of that Court's ruling against the FCC in the Comcast case. That case revolved around allegations that Comcast had improperly been slowing down certain kinds of traffic on its network. Because of the Court's ruling in that case, Verizon in particular, believed that it had a good chance for success in its net neutrality challenge.

The D.C. District dismissed the initial claims by Verizon and MetroPCS because they the issues were not yet ready for consideration. The net neutrality rules cannot be challenged until they have been properly filed in the Federal Register.

Recently, Free Press also brought suit against the FCC and its net neutrality rules, and several claims in support of the rules were filed in various other Circuits. Those claims were brought before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. Verizon refiled its claim last week and on Thursday the D.C. Circuit was chosen at random to be the court to hear the challenges.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

The FCC announced this week the first trial of a database for its white space broadband initiative. White space broadband rules were adopted by the Commission last year in order to provide an opportunity to test whether broadband could be delivered wirelessly in areas of the television broadcast spectrum that are unused. Because those unused frequencies vary in different parts of the U.S., a database of occupied frequencies is required to prevent white space devices from interfering with television broadcasts, cable headends, wireless microphones among other uses of this part of the spectrum.

Spectrum Bridge is the company that has developed the white space database the FCC is testing starting on September 19 and running for 45 days. The FCC and Spectrum Bridge are allowing the public to participate in the trial, via this web site.

Obviously for white space broadband to become a reality, the technology to prevent it from interfering with licensed use of the same portion of spectrum must work flawlessly. If a neighbor's white space broadband access has a deleterious affect on your television signal, then this technology isn't ready to proceed to market.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

I recently wrote about a lawsuit currently pending about AT&T's data usage tracking. One of the key issues in that case is whether AT&T smartphones makedata transfers on AT&T's mobile network even when phone settings have been modified to avoid background data usage.

Now, two U.S. senators have become interested in AT&T's practices and plan to investigate the issue.

Lawyers in the case conducted a study to determine whether or not AT&T is over-charging and , if so, the extent to which AT&T was over-charging for data usage. Engineers hired by the plaintiff attorneys purchased new AT&T smartphones and did not enable any push notifications, location services, or anything that could inadvertently lead to data usage. Afterwards, several data charges appeared on the bill, even during late night hours when the phone's power was off.

This development obviously changed the tone of the case, which AT&T previously described as "without merit." The lawsuit alleges that AT&T overbills its customers anywhere from 7 to 300% for data usage.

U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Herb Kohl have taken an interest in the case and sent a letter to AT&T asking the company to explain the "phantom charges." Senators Klobuchar and Kohl also asked the company to provide a thorough accounting of their billing practices and whether or not they provide safeguards against over-billing data usage and whether or not there are ways for customers to verify their data usage.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Last week the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the mobile location data collection issue. Both Apple and Google were brought in to discuss how their respective mobile operating systems - iOS and Android - deal with user's location data.

Now a second hearing with the Senate's Commerce Committee has been scheduled, and Facebook has been added to the list of attendees (which includes another round with Apple and Google). Notably, the Department of Justice is not involved in this hearing as it was in the first.

The topic to be discussed is "consumer privacy and protection in the mobile marketplace," including the notifications practices these companies use and how the collected data is stored and/or transferred.

The initial hearing came on the heels of the location data issue and focused primarily on data collected by Apple's iOS devices that was stored on an accessible file on Apple's iPhone and iPad devices. Apple described its data collection policies and its intentions for using the data (essentially a crowd-sourced database). Apple also promised to more thoroughly secure the data, prevent the data from staying on the phone for more than a few days, and delete all the data whenever location services were disabled on the device.

It appears the Senate isn't done with its examination of this issue, which also included Android devices and Windows Phone 7 devices (though Microsoft has not been included in the second hearing).

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

The Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has instituted interim rules for its distribution of broadband development loans. However, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the cable industry's trade association, has filed comments with the RUS that these rules do not fix the program's many problems and should be fixed before any more loans are distributed.

The program has received its fair share of criticism for failing to meet the intended purpose of delivering broadband to areas that aren't served by broadband, instead funding a number of applicants to build networks in areas that are already served by other providers, resulting in government-subsidized competitive providers.

The NCTA proposes that broadband loans should be given to areas that are totally unserved as a top priority. The next tier of broadband loan distributions should be targeted to areas where the unserved make up more than 75% of all area households. The FCC and the NTIA (National Telecommunications & Information Administration) both keep records that better define "unserved," as compared to the RUS's internal records.

The NCTA has also objected to the RUS practice of including Universal Service Fund (USF) disbursements in loan repayment calculations. The FCC has plans to reform the out-dated USF, and there are good questions about whether it makes sense for the RUS to use a system that is admittedly out-dated to determine what these government-subsidized service providers should have to repay.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Five senators, including Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, are currently looking to have the Securities and Exchange Commission require a greater level of disclosure from companies regarding cyberattacks.

In particular, these five senators would like the SEC to establish a set of guidelines for properly reporting any attacks on networks or systems. These guidelines should also direct companies to provide specific details relating to what exactly has been compromised during the attack.

All of this comes on the heels of the significant attack Sony experienced on its PlayStation Network, which compromised thousands of accounts of user data and credit card information. Sony's is the latest example, but other companies including Google, Intel, PayPal, and MasterCard all have recently suffered some form of cyberattack.

Another problem the SEC has with these attacks is that too often a company's investors are not informed enough regarding the implications of cyberattacks. As Sony has shown us, these cyberattacks can significantly impact a company's bottom line as it's reported Sony lost roughly $1.24 billion on the PlayStation Network breach and outage.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

The NCTA has released a comprehensive study examining investments made under the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) that was part of the 2009 economic stimulus. While the program's funds have now been exhausted, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) allocated over $3.5 billion over its two year lifespan.

NCTA's study found that the program has led to millions of dollars being used to build broadband in areas that already were already being served by other providers. The FCC originally estimated that it would take around $23.5 billion to ensure that broadband reached every household.

Now, because so much has been spent on building areas already served, it appears that it will take as much as $87.2 billion to achieve the FCC’s goal.

The goal of the broadband stimulus portion of the economic recovery act was to provide broadband access to areas that may not be financially feasible or beneficial for private providers to build.

Since the program began, the NCTA and many others have expressed concern over the funds being used as government competition in the form of overbuilding in areas where private companies already invested their own capital to provide broadband access.

This latest study shows that those concerns were legitimate. It examined three particular BIP projects, and a total of 85 percent of the households in the areas that received the funding were already being served by another provider. In fact, in one area, over 98 percent of the people in the awarded areas already were being served.

Using taxpayer dollars to build out high-cost areas that aren't already served by a private provider is a laudable goal. But when it results in government investment competing with private companies and wasting millions of dollars, while many Americans still don't have access to the promised broadband access, it's probably time for a serious review of the existing plan.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

The government contract to supply email service to the U.S. Department of Interior has led to a fierce battle between Microsoft and Google. That battle was taken to a new level recently when Microsoft publicly accused Google of false claims relating to its email service’s fulfillment of the federal security requirements.

The deal was originally offered to Microsoft for $59 million in exchange for email services to roughly 88,000 federal employees. Shortly after Microsoft was granted the account, Google brought suit against the federal government alleging that the process for awarding the contract was rigged in Microsoft’s favor.

Since that time, Google alleged that its Google Apps for Government had received a stamp of approval for official government certification. It was thought that this certification, given under the Federal Information Security Management Act, would give Google a leg up on the competition, namely Microsoft.

In a lengthy blog post on Monday, however, Microsoft alleged that the FISMA certification claim by Google was, despite all statements by Google to the contrary, was not valid. In fact, Microsoft even pointed to official Department of Justice documents stating that the Google Apps for Government did not have FISMA certification.

Apparently, Google Apps Premier, a different suite, had received the certification, but Google Apps for Government is merely in the process of certification.

Between this dispute and the recent claim filed by Microsoft against Google before the European Commission, alleging various antitrust violations, the Microsoft-Google tension appears to be at an all time high.

Tuesday, April 05, 2011

When the FCC released its network neutrality rules a few months ago, Internet service providers Verizon and MetroPCS were quick to respond with lawsuits.

Verizon was the first to bring a claim over the new rules. Interestingly, Verizon chose to bring its claim before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia, which is the same Court that issued the Comcast case that called the FCC’s authority into question in the first place. In fact, Verizon even requested the same judges.

As savvy as that move might have been, the case has now been dismissed for fairly technical reasons. The Court’s order pointed to the “prematurity” of Verizon’s claim. The FCC net neutrality rules had not yet been published in the Federal Register when the claims were brought. This filing must occur before a proper challenge may be brought to FCC action.

The FCC can count this as a win, for now. It’s likely that Verizon and MetroPCS will still bring their claims. They simply will not have the benefit of having the claims heard by the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Rosch’s concern is that these four companies could make it extremely difficult for upstart companies to enter the Internet advertising market. The FTC has concerns that those four companies have become so big that they could manipulate the market in their favor.

He also pointed to a proposed FTC proposal regarding advertising that could actually work against ensuring upstarts have the ability to truly compete. For instance, the FTC has proposed requiring browsers to install a “Do Not Track” tool to prevent tracking advertisements. Rosch’s opinion is that the big players will be able to find ways to work around this type of regulation while smaller players will be the most impacted.

Rosch's remarks came on the same day that the FTC ordered Google to submit to regular privacy audits for the next 20 years. That action awaits a full commission vote.

Friday, March 11, 2011

Facebook's planned policy to allow third-party app developers to request access to users’ personal contact information stored in their profile on the site has been met with criticism, which resulted in Facebook deciding to postpone implementing the new policy for the time being.

Now the newly formed privacy panel of the U.S. Senate is getting involved. Senators Al Franken (Minn), Chuck Schumer (NY), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) and Richard Blumenthal (Conn) are pressing Facebook on the policy.

The senators are requesting that Facebook reconsider the policy, at least as it applies to younger users who may not understand the consequences of not protecting their personal information. Further, the senators are demanding that Facebook provide detailed disclosure information to any users who could be affected. Their preference would be that these apps still be available to users even if they decline to provide the contact information, if at all possible.

Facebook has responded by saying that, while they appreciate the feedback and will use it to influence future decisions, they see great value in giving users the opportunity to share information about themselves. The company went on to say that any external app could not access personal information without the user granting permission through Facebook.

Still, Congress has its concerns, and even some House members have gotten involved in the issue. Rep. Joe Barton (Texas) and Rep. Ed Markey (Mass.) from the Bipartisan Privacy Committee have expressed similar concern to that of the Senate.

Facebook is still weighing their concerns so it remains to be seen if, when and how they will implement the policy.

Monday, March 07, 2011

Over the weekend, LIN Media pulled its broadcast channels from Dish’s network because the two companies failed to reach an agreement on increases in retransmission consent fees. It’s a story that unfortunately has become all too familiar over the past couple years.

LIN Media owns more than 24 stations in 17 markets, ranging geographically from Albuquerque to Buffalo, which Dish customers now are no longer able to view. Within Insight's footprint, one station affects customers in the Columbus, OH market.

Both companies have issued the usual accusatory statements - Dish saying that LIN is asking for an exorbitant increase and LIN insisting they only want "fair" compensation - while Dish customers are left in the dark.

Just last week the FCC voted to begin a rule making on retransmission consent - rules that govern the process by which cable and satellite providers include broadcast channels on their lineups. The Commission is considering eliminating restrictions on providers carrying out-of-market broadcast stations during a dispute and strengthening how it defines good faith negotiations between providers and broadcasters. Both measures could help to bring some sanity to this process for consumers.

As I've said before, under the current rules, broadcasters frequently use their programming monopoly as leverage to ask for double and triple digit percentage increases in retrans fees While the FCC will seek to tighten the rules surrounding retransmission consent negotiations, some stakeholders claim the agency lacks the jurisdiction to intervene. Unfortunately, the FCC has just begun considering these changes, and the current retransmission rules do nothing to protect Dish viewers from this blackout.

Remember when VHS and Betamax were battling for video format supremacy? Well something very similar is happening with in online video, and now the Department of Justice is doing something this time that it chose to stay out of during the video format war -- stepping in to ensure one technology is not being "unfairly" prejudiced.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the DOJ is investigating MPEG LA, which is the organization licenses patents for MPEG-4 and H.264. MPEG LA collects royalties from web video sites like Netflix and YouTube. The video sites pay into the MPEG LA, who distributes the royalties to its members (the patent holders), which include Apple and Microsoft.

Recently Google released a new web video format called VP8 which competes with the technologies licensed by MPEG LA. The DOJ is investigating whether MPEG LA is actively creating legal uncertainty as to whether the use of VP8 violates MPEG LA-held patents.

Because they own the competiting technologies, Google and Apple are on opposite sides of the investigation, with very significant implications for the future of online television. This investigation could very well have a significant impact on which video format thrives in the growing web video market.

In addition, this investigation also could lead to interesting determinations about online video copyright in the next generation of web programming language, HTML 5.

Thursday, March 03, 2011

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that AT&T can not claim a privacy exemption on data collected by the FCC regarding the company's participation in the E-Rate program. The program, which is funded by the Universal Service Fund, is designed to provide subsidies to connect schools and libraries to broadband. Ma Bell had fought a court battle to keep its billing records under E-Rate exempt from the Freedom of Information Act under a protection for "personal privacy" in the law.

The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that AT&T's arguements were without merit. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court's opinion, which stated in part, "When it comes to the word ‘personal,’ there is little support for the notion that it denotes corporations, even in the legal context.” And in a bit of wit that indicates that even Supreme Court justices are not without a sense of humor, Roberts wrote, "We trust AT&T will not take it personally."

This ruling is a win for consumers. In 2004, AT&T settled a FCC investigation into its overbilling under E-Rate. This ruling ensures there will be transparency in their E-Rate billing practices going forward, meaning that USF funds are being used for their designated purpose - providing teachers and students broadband and not simply lining AT&T's pockets.

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner believes the FCC’s recent net neutrality rulemaking will come up for a repeal vote in the House as early as this month. The rules are only a couple months old, as the FCC voted on December 21 to formalize their position on how providers manage their networks. Since that time, however, Republicans have been sworn in as a majority in the House and have indicated plans to overturn the FCC's assumption of jurisdiction over net neutrality.

House Republicans have already impacted the rulemaking by defunding the net neutrality rules enforcement in the stop-gap appropriations the House recently passed. However, Speaker Boehner believes the opposition will go even further, citing a resolution introduced by Greg Walden (R-Ore.) who chairs the Communications Subcommittee. Walden’s resolution would completely invalidate the FCC’s rules on net neutrality, and Boehner believes that resolution will quickly pass the House.

Of course, in order for any repeal to become law, the Senate must also pass the measure and President Obama must sign it. Even if the House were to overturn net neutrality, it is a long shot that it will ever pass in the Senate and even less likely that the President would ever sign it into law.

Monday, February 28, 2011

The Universal Service Fund (USF) is an $8 billion fund to subsidize phone services in rural and high-cost build-out areas. Recently, the FCC has begun a process to transition the fund from phone service to broadband service.

Using the fund for broadband is good public policy, but migrating to broadband also raises interesting questions about who should be contributing to the fund.

The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) has stated that it believes Netflix should be forced to pay into the fund. In the CFA’s opinion, Netflix and other companies that eat up large amounts of bandwidth are just as responsible for funding broadband deployment as the providers themselves.

Mark Cooper, the director of research for CFA, compared Netflix to phone service tolls. Although they were not service providers, phone tolls paid into the USF because of the costs they imposed on phone service. Cooper believes Netflix imposes a similar toll and should be charged a similar tax.

Blair Levin, a former FCC official, stated that he wouldn’t be opposed to demanding contributions from companies like Netflix, but he stressed that before the contribution debate took place, the FCC needed to iron out the distribution process for USF funds. Levin worries that muddying the contributor debate with the distribution debate will end up in a “political stalemate” and the USF will remain the out-of-date fund it is today.

Rural phone companies are obviously in favor of contributions from high-bandwidth websites like Netflix. According to the chief executive of the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, Netflix uses up roughly 10 percent of each provider’s bandwidth and they should be required to contribute for that high level of usage.

Friday, February 18, 2011

The FCC's network neutrality rules are already the subject of a lawsuit filed by Verizon and MetroPCS seeking to overtun them on jurisdictional grounds. As of Thursday, they're also under assault in Congress, as the U.S. House of Representatives voted to deny funding to the FCC for the rules' enforcement budget.

The House voted 244 to 181 in approving an amendment to a spending bill that denied the FCC funding for net neutrality enforcement. The measure was championed by the Republican majority in that chamber, and the vote was largely along party lines.

Of course, for the measure to become law it must be approved by the Senate and signed into law by President Obama. It faces an uncertian future in the Senate. Republicans in that body have filed a similar measure, but they don't have a majority, although there might be enough Democrats to make it a horserace. Even so, President Obama, a supporter of the FCC's actions on net neutrality, would be unlikely to sign a bill that effectively overturns the new rules.